In the second of his two-part Convivium essay, Don Hutchinson details how the recent Supreme Court decision on Trinity Western University puts Canada on an enigmatic path toward an ill-defined ideal of diversity – and puts foundational democratic principles at risk. 8 minute read.

The re-conceptualization of “diversity” by the Supreme Court of Canada in two recent decisions portends critical shifts in the way Canadians think about their country, their society and perhaps even themselves.

It’s important to note that in Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University and Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, the Court did not provide a (re)definition of diversity or explain the (new) concept envisioned by classifying diversity as a Charter “value.” Yet its rulings enabled a reducing of the context for the Court’s consideration of diversity from a broad concept involving the national fabric to a concept that can be applied to a single, specific profession such as the law. Then “diversity” was reduced more narrowly to a single private institution – Trinity Western University – and finally to consideration of one potential future applicant.

This hypothetical applicant is a (hypothetical) member of the LGBTQ community who desires to attend a Christian university, and objects to the Christian beliefs and practices of the university. Despite not actually existing, the applicant has, for some reason, chosen not to attend, or is otherwise unable to attend, one of 19 public university law schools in Canada, narrowing his or her prospect of attending law school to one seat at Trinity Western out of the 10,000-plus available nationwide. (Based on Trinity Western’s history, one cannot assume for a moment that the law school’s academic standards would be at or near the low end of national standards, i.e. academically, it would be easier to get into many other Canadian schools.)

The narrow requirement of responsibility for diversity in the venue of private education, specifically pertaining to equality of opportunity for potential LGBTQ students, was accepted by a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada as a reasonable concern for the two government regulatory agencies to have and to hold in withholding their approval of the proposed law school. This is the standard that applies to the law societies as government regulatory bodies, not a standard that would otherwise apply to Trinity Western. The school was compliant with all academic, legal and constitutional human rights requirements for a university. (Trinity Western complies with the B.C. Human Rights Code. Other Canadian courts have found the Charter has no application to publicly funded universities, and therefore would not be applicable to a private university.)

This fresh constitutional perception of diversity from five members of the Supreme Court was determined to be a Charter “value.” The Charter value “diversity” is distinct from the Canadian value promulgated by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who says diversity is understood like “the air we breathe.” It is also distinct from the “diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes of conduct” earlier stipulated by the Court as that which is found in a “truly free society.” The Charter value “diversity,” however, was used as the legal construct to override the constitutionally enshrined Charter right to freedom of religion, the right that had been previously recognized by the Court to protect the same Christian university community from a similar attempt to infringe its religious beliefs and behavioural expectations by the government regulatory body for teachers.

The most quoted paragraphs I’ve seen in commentary on the Trinity Western law school decisions were written by Justices Suzanne Côté and Russell Brown, who disagreed with the majority’s opinion. Justices Côté and Brown wrote:

First, Charter “values” — unlike Charter rights, which are the product of constitutional settlement — are unsourced. They are, therefore, entirely the product of the idiosyncrasies of the judicial mind that pronounces them to be so. … What is troubling, however, is the imposition of judicially preferred “values” to limit constitutionally protected rights, including the right to hold other values.

Secondly, and relatedly, Charter “values”, as stated by the majority, are amorphous and, just as importantly, undefined.

In the end, “diversity” was left undefined objectively, either generally or in law, yet applied as necessary to the practice of law and thus a justifiable concern in regard to legal education.

Similarly undefined was the mechanism of Charter values that was exercised by the Court to overrule a Charter right. And, while Charter rights are written in Canada’s Constitution, Charter values are “entirely the product of the idiosyncrasies of the judicial mind that pronounces them to be so,” as Justices Brown and Coté put it.

If there is a redeeming characteristic to the majority’s 2018 law school decisions, it is that the Court did not overturn its own decision in Trinity Western 2001. The 2018 reconceptualization of diversity and its application as a Charter value is confined by the Court to the unique circumstance of the decisions made by the two law societies; the fact situation of the law societies’ consideration of the mandatory religious behavioural requirement for students in relation to educational training for the practice of law. It really is that narrow in application.

But no decision of the Supreme Court of Canada exists in isolation. So, what might the paired decisions mean for Canadians’ understanding of “diversity”?

That’s not clear. The Court has left diversity undefinedly in a state of confusion about its meaning and application in Canadian law and life.

What is clear is the Court chose not to consider equality under the Charter as a competing right with the Trinity Western community’s Charter right to freedom of religion. No balancing act, instead the law school decisions rest on the Charter value diversity. Perhaps, a hint as to the Court’s meaning may be found in a paper presented by Chief Justice McLachlin in 2012 in which she states:

Considering social context has proved important to ensuring that Canada’s judges meet the challenge of judging in a diverse society.

In the law school cases, the unique social context developed by the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada was the distinctive responsibilities and place of the legal profession in Canadian society.

Still, diversity has got to mean more than the potential availability of a single position in a small Christian law school for someone from the LGBTQ community. And it has to mean more than a chair at the table of an unstipulated and undefined diverse corporate board. Diversity also has to mean less than having each instance of its subjective microcosmic assertion authoritatively able to supersede recognized institutional compliance with stipulated operating, legal and constitutional requirements.

In affirmation of the current vagaries of diversity, State actors – politicians, diplomats, lawyers, judges, and regulatory bodies – have taken an enigmatic path from a constitutionally recognized government responsibility of making space for a wide assortment of Canadian individuals and institutions in a broad societal context to select destinations that mandate “diversity undefined” in the setting of personal responsibility within a private organization. It’s a path from expectations of State protection for cultural variety to a terminus that features enforcement of ambiguous criteria for beliefs and practices on private actors, institutional and individual.

Has it been a prudent journey that strengthened the fabric of Canadian society, promoting respect for our differences? Or, has it been an improvident expedition, pulling from time to time on single threads of ideology, occasionally disregarding the rights and freedoms recognized both historically and by the legislatures of our nation?

In the end, we may have thoughts about what diversity means, but we have lost our effective definition and general perception of diversity, and it has not been replaced.

Like beauty, it seems diversity may be in the eye of the beholder; and, beheld differently conditional on setting, whether similar or dissimilar. With such ambiguity, how does one restrain a State “beholder,” particularly one that has authority to impose its view on a private institution, a profession, or a nation?

Isn’t that just what the nationally negotiated and written words in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were meant to do? Whither the diverse and “truly free society” observed and definitively commented upon by the Supreme Court of Canada a fleeting three decades ago?

Not addressed in The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2018 decisions was the conclusion reached by a 5-0 unanimous British Columbia Court of Appeal in its 2016 decision in Trinity Western University v. Law Society of British Columbia:

A society that does not admit of and accommodate differences cannot be a free and democratic society—one in which its citizens are free to think, to disagree, to debate and to challenge the accepted view without fear of reprisal. This case demonstrates that a well-intentioned majority acting in the name of tolerance and liberalism, can, if unchecked, impose its views on the minority in a manner that is in itself intolerant and illiberal.

Perhaps, because the decisions in Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University and Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada were jurisprudentially confined to the narrow position of the two law societies in regard to their particular concerns for the study and practice of law, the characterisation of diversity recognised by Canadian judges as applicable to the rule of law remains as it was prior to June 15. Perhaps not.

In the last week of July, more than eighty countries participated at the first global Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, hosted by the U.S. State Department. Canada’s official representative was Member of Parliament Matt DeCourcey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. DeCourcey stated Canada’s commitment to freedom of religion in terms of inclusion and diversity:

Canada is steadfast in our commitment to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that enshrines the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We are firmly dedicated to the promotion of inclusion and respect for diversity as well as the protection of all human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, at home and internationally.

Like the Geneva statement and Twitter activity from Global Affairs Canada, inclusion and diversity were joined at the hip in DeCourcey’s statement, before being tied at the ankle, as in a three-legged race, to “all human rights, including freedom of religion.” It’s not clear what that means for the Government of Canada’s understanding of diversity, “respect for diversity,” freedom of religion, or other human rights, except that the government stated it is “firmly dedicated” to their promotion “at home and internationally.”

The “at home” commitment to freedom of religion and “respect for diversity” brings the Canada Summer Jobs attestation clause to mind.

Where any definition of diversity will settle for politicians, diplomats, lawyers and judges remains to be seen, as does where such understanding will be settled as a general perception for Canadians. We can hope such definition will be as expansive as the Supreme Court’s conception of a “truly free society” in 1985 and as envisioned by B.C.’s Court of Appeal about accommodating our differences in 2016. Otherwise, we may be left to ponder whether Canada truly has, or will continue to have, the “free and democratic society” proclaimed (in both official languages) in writing as part of 1982’s amendment to our constitution.

Canadians have developed a swelling pride about creating a country where respect for difference is key to the national spirit. But in this deep dive into what we mean by diversity, Ottawa writer Don Hutchinson says recent developments risk draining the concept of any common understanding. 11 minute read.

“Diversity is our strength,” proclaimed Justin Trudeau. “It’s easy, in a country like Canada, to take diversity for granted. In so many ways, it’s the air we breathe,” the Prime Minister continued.

Diversity, he declared, is a “Canadian value.”

It is easy in Canada “to take diversity for granted.” We may think we understand it like “the air we breathe.” But what do we understand diversity to be?

Does our comprehension of diversity draw Canadians together or assign us to differing camps, like contradictory perspectives on “the air we breathe”? Some think little about the nature of air. Others are continually absorbed in delving into the complexity of air’s composition, and whether the quality of air is manageable or polluted, sounding alarms and demanding immediate action.

On the World Day for Cultural Diversity, Global Affairs Canada conjoined “#diversity” and “#inclusion” in tweets from home base in Ottawa and diplomatic missions around the planet. Does diversity, then, change in nature when combined with inclusion, like components of air combined as two parts hydrogen and one-part oxygen (H2O)?

In Ontario, the government-appointed body for regulation of lawyers mandated each of its members to personally “abide by a statement of principles acknowledging their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally.”

Is adding equality to the diversity and inclusion mix a formula for yet another composition of diversity? Equality does bring with it the distinction of being a right recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On June 15, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada released two decisions that hinged on the “Charter value” of diversity. Does the Charter value differ from the Canadian value expressed by the Prime Minister? What message do we comprehend when other politicians as well as diplomats, lawyers and judges refer to “diversity”?

Those who lived in the neighbourhood where I grew up generally perceived it as diverse. My parents had come from Barbados. We also had multi-generation Canadians, immigrants from Poland, Germany, England, India, Pakistan, South Africa, the USA and more. Protestants lived side-by-side with Catholics, non-churchgoers, and people from religions about which I knew little. Mostly white-skinned, we were well seasoned with a peppering of black and brown. The boys gathered around hockey, football, baseball and sledding, and as we matured, music and girls. We got along. This diversity was our Canada.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was included as Part I in amendments to Canada’s Constitution in 1982.

Deliberating in a key decision on the subject of “diversity” in 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed its earlier Charter-related conclusions on the theme. In the 1996 case Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, the Court found it:

… obvious that the pluralistic nature of society and the extent of diversity in Canada are important elements that must be understood by future teachers because they are the fabric of the society within which teachers operate and the reason why there is a need to respect and promote minority rights.

In order to grasp the “the fabric of [Canadian] society” it was deemed essential to understand two things: pluralism – the coexistence of people and groups from different backgrounds, with differing beliefs, opinions and practices; and, the extent of diversity in Canada. The Court observed that the path to its 1996 discernment was set in 1985 in R. v. Big M Drug Mart, its first decision on the Charter’s stated right to freedom of religion. In Big M, an expansive concept of diversity was deemed the evidence of “a truly free society.”

The 1985 Court declared:

A truly free society is one which can accommodate a wide variety of beliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes of conduct.

This review of earlier verdicts led the Court to conclude in 2001, in Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers,

The diversity of Canadian society is partly reflected in the multiple religious organizations that mark the societal landscape and this diversity of views should be respected.

Within the context of the fabric of Canadian society as a whole, the societal landscape as it was synonymously phrased, a diversity or multiplicity of organizations and views was to be expected, and respected.

In the particular case before them, the Supreme Court of Canada decided it was unreasonable for the B.C. College of Teachers to deny accreditation to a school intended to train teachers for public school classrooms simply because it was part of a private religious university community with religiously founded behavioural standards. It was one of Canada’s diversity of organizations.

The Court clarified that both the beliefs and the practices of Trinity Western’s university community were protected from interference by the government regulatory body because of the Charter right to freedom of religion. The regulator, the Court determined, was confined to assessing graduates’ academic qualifications and regulating teachers after they entered the teaching profession.

In the context of the fabric of Canadian society identified by the Supreme Court between 1985 and 2001, the Prime Minister’s words might be correct, diversity is a strength. Long held principles undergirding Canadian society cultivated the freedom required for the kind of diversity noted by the Court – a range of different beliefs and practices, variety in individual and organizational expression in Canada’s multicultural and multi-religious milieu.

The description of diversity as a societal respect for the non-conforming Canadian, or community, as depicted by the Supreme Court is more than virtuous tolerance. It is an expression of acceptance, empathy, and an attitude of fair treatment toward those who are “different,” whether the “other” be an individual or a community. The Court’s perception of diversity could certainly be described as a Canadian national strength, if indeed it was the Canadian general perception of diversity.

At some point in fairly recent Canadian history, diversity became twinned with inclusion, and the two are now rarely seen at any distance from one another. With the coupling, the understanding of diversity transitioned from the wide-ranging context of the national societal fabric to a more subjective, fluid concept for application in a narrower, one-organization-at-a-time setting.

The transition is summarily expressed in a 443-word statement made by Canada’s representative to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, on March 20 2017. In the lead up to the UN World Day for Cultural Diversity, Canada spoke on “The Power of Inclusion and the Benefits of Diversity.” Our international position quickly rerouted from observation of diversity in the national and international context, having noted “[d]iversity is an indisputable fact … each context is unique, all communities, countries and regions of the world are diverse,” to smaller-scale obligation with the authoritatively phrased declarations:

Inclusive workplaces are more productive, and have higher employee and client satisfaction. Evidence indicates that companies with diverse boards perform better.

What does an inclusive workplace look like? What are the metrics that compare inclusion with productivity and with the satisfaction of both employees and clients? What is a diverse corporate board? How is board diversity measured against corporate performance? Are these affirmations from observation or assertions of hypotheses on the world stage?

Eight months after the Geneva statements, Ontario’s Law Society gave two months warning to members that by the end of the year each would be required to develop and “abide by a statement of principles acknowledging their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally,” in addition to existing expectations of adhering to the law and human rights legislation.

Tripleting equality with already twinned diversity and inclusion seemed to further narrow the once-upon-a-not-so-distant-time-ago expansive “national fabric” conceptualization of diversity. The transition in contemplation of diversity thus journeyed from broad societal recognition, through organizational requirement of non-discrimination and affirmative pursuit of diversity and inclusion, to a compulsory personal responsibility for promotion, advancing the cause. But what cause? How is the cause defined?

In a clarifying document, the Law Society offered circular commentary as the rationale for the new requirement. The “intention of the statement of principles is to demonstrate the personal valuing of equality, diversity, and inclusion with respect to the employment of others, or in professional dealings with other licensees or any other person.” “Equality,” “diversity,” and “inclusion” were not defined by the Law Society in making this requirement of its members, lawyers.

It all seems relatively innocent, even positive and harmless, until one arrives at the realization that the government’s responsibility to accommodate a variety of cultures and institutions in the fabric of society has been incrementally reframed to redirect the responsibility from government to State-compelled endorsement and responsibility for belief in, and advancement of, the ambiguous, transitioning, and undefined concept “diversity” by private organizations and individual persons.

This is not consideration of societal values resulting in acceptance and respect for all Canadians. It is not application of the Charter to protect Canadians’ rights from government interference in the context of the national fabric. Nor is it the observation of non-discrimination in hiring or housing contemplated by provincial human rights codes. What is this new conceptualization of diversity that requires a statement of belief and commitment to promote?

Smack dab in the middle of Pride Month, on June 15 to be precise, the Supreme Court of Canada embraced the ambiguity.

That morning, the Court issued paired decisions in Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University and Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada. In its fresh consideration of diversity, the Court moved jurisprudentially away from its historic recognition of diversity as an expression of the expansive Canadian fabric in a pluralist society. Set aside was the position on diversity that it had previously affirmed as “obvious” and “essential” to the interpretation of the Charter right to freedom of religion.

In place of the time-honoured and steadying societal paradigm stood something more akin to the narrower organizational and personal responsibility re-conceptualization of diversity, the one fused to inclusion and equality; the diversity that is subjective and undefined. As a result, the Court deliberately chose to impose on a Canadian religious organization the constitutional responsibilities expected of a government body.

The enshrinement in Canada’s Constitution of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the result of a negotiation between the federal government and provincial legislatures. The Charter that emerged recognizes protections intended to ensure fair and equal treatment for all Canadians, including Canadian organizations, in regard to actions of government, and agencies authorized to act on behalf of government.

Justice Jamie Campbell of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court followed more than three decades of judicial precedent when, in his 2015 decision in Trinity Western University v. Nova Scotia Barristers Society, he observed:

The Charter is not a blueprint for moral conformity. Its purpose is to protect the citizen from the power of the state, not to enforce compliance by citizens or private institutions with the moral judgements of the state.

Law societies are agencies authorized by provincial and territorial governments to act on government’s behalf to regulate the legal profession. Two of these government authorized agencies, from British Columbia and Ontario, ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada because they were unwilling to recognize an academically certified law school proposed by a private Christian university. Why? They objected to its religious Community Covenant setting out expected Christian behaviour for members of the university community. The Covenant includes a religiously based prohibition of sexual activity by staff or students outside of the marriage relationship between a woman and a man.

The law societies (government agencies) made an argument not too different from that made by the government authorized agency for regulating the teachers’ profession less than two decades earlier in Trinity Western 2001. The crux of their argument was unease that establishing a law school at Trinity Western would “negatively impact equitable access to and diversity within the legal profession and would harm LGBTQ individuals, and would therefore undermine the public interest in the administration of justice.”

Let’s ponder that position on diversity.

There are more than 120,000 lawyers in Canada – 55,000 in Ontario and 14,000 in B.C., the two law societies (out of fourteen nationwide) that ended up in the Supreme Court. There are more than 10,000 student spaces available to study common law in Canada, at 19 public universities. The private Christian university, Trinity Western, was proposing to open a 180-student law school, i.e., 60 students per year of the three year program.*

The professional anxiety expressed by these legal leaders about diversity, as presented to the Court by the two government authorized agencies, may be reduced to the question, “What kind of message would be sent to the nation if the potential for attendance at a private religious institution became the preferred or only available option to study law for one or more LGBTQ individuals who took offense with the religious university community’s beliefs and campus code of conduct?”

The LGBTQ community was the only group out of the entire Canadian population distinguished for such consideration. Concern was not expressed about the potential impact of the Community Covenant on members of other religious communities, non-religious students, heterosexual students who are sexually active outside marriage, or the Covenant’s stated constraints on the use of “vulgar” language, tobacco and alcohol (two products as legal as same-sex marriage in Canada).

Take a moment to reflect on a few simple questions.

How did that sentence about conduct at a private religious school make you feel? What were your first thoughts about a religious community that has such restrictions on sex, language, tobacco and alcohol?

What do you think of when you consider diversity?

Do you think your neighbour’s idea of diversity aligns with yours?

Does your understanding of diversity include that other religious community? The LGBTQ community? People with visible disabilities? Invisible disabilities? Those with different cultural and racial backgrounds than you?

Based on your personal sense of diversity, who is welcome and who is unwelcome in your Canada? Or your line of work? Are you interested in hearing what people who are different from you have to say about who they are or is your idea of who they are sufficient for you?

With those questions in mind, let’s go back to the law school cases.

The law societies set aside evidence about Trinity Western provided by students from other religious communities, and non-religious and LGBTQ students who had already attended the university, living by the Covenant while studying there. They had positive experiences. The Covenant, you see, also requires community members to “treat people and ideas with charity and respect.” To do justice to the Community Covenant requires reading it, not just being captivated by the hype about gay sex.

The two (out of fourteen) law societies fixed their gaze, like a horse wearing blinders in a Triple Crown race, on the improbability that one or more students from the LGBTQ community (which comprises fewer than two per cent of the Canadian population) might potentially be at risk of feeling excluded from attending law school at Trinity Western because of the religious standards of the small private Christian university. The process employed by each of the two government authorized regulatory bodies rejected the Supreme Court’s finding from 2001 that the university community’s standards were protected by the Charter’s enumerated right to “freedom of religion” as part of the “diversity of Canadian society.”

The Supreme Court of Canada went along with the new re-characterization of diversity by the law societies, finding it a viable option, but not the only option, for the purpose of application to the legal profession, and the purpose of education for the legal profession.

Does it make sense to you that the delineation of diversity, under the rule of law or otherwise, would be different in different settings and for different professions?

I’ll seek to offer answers to that question tomorrow in part two of this essay.

*Correction to the original article which stated, “a 60-student law school, i.e., 20 students per year of the three year program.”

I know. I know. Another piece about the Canada Summer Jobs program. But this one’s different. This one is just for Christ-followers.

Are you praying?

Are you praying for our Prime Minister, his cabinet, our government?

Mainstream media – the major television, radio and newspaper outlets – across the country have expressed a common opinion. Even Canada’s leading pro-abortion activist has publicly expressed her opinion that the government needs to change the now infamous attestation clause. Is there more to what’s happening?

St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians reminds us in chapter 6, verse 12 that, “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” Call me crazy, but this is about more than the nation learning what the word attestation means.

Stick with me.

Last November, Christian leaders from coast-to-coast-to-coast called the nation to prayer in regard to the Trinity Western University law school cases (Ontario and British Columbia) that were presented before the Supreme Court of Canada on November 30 and December 1, 2017. And, people were asked to keep praying until a decision is released. Here’s a part of that prayer request as I noted last November,

… representatives from TWU have asked for prayer that there will be a healing of the hurts revealed through this process. The request is particularly that the dialogue between all people who live together in the shared free and democratic society of Canada might continue with respect and acceptance, even when there is not agreement.

Have you ever prayed about one thing and realized your prayer was impacting something else?

As Christians in Canada have shared in the prayer highlighted above, we have engaged a request for broader dialogue than the accreditation of a law school.

Step back from the politics of the Canada Summer Jobs situation for a moment. Ask yourself why self-described atheist and feminist Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, has asked Prime Minister Trudeau to make the correction that would enable faith groups to apply for funding without being asked to compromise the holistic claims of their religious beliefs?

The Canada Summer Jobs fiasco has resulted in the media – politically left, right and centre – giving more national coverage to the true nature of Canada’s abortion situation than the best organized pro-life group could ever have imagined. CBC, CTV, Global, National Post, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and more have all run pieces written by people who cover the political spectrum in which they have shared that the 1988 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Morgentaler did not establish a right to abortion in Canada. Canadians have been informed that because Canada has no law providing protection to the child in the womb at any stage of gestation, our nation is the only outlier on this issue among the world’s democracies. The media has reminded Canadians abortion remains an active political issue.

In addition, the mainstream media has championed the constitutional right to freedom of conscience and religion, as well as freedom of expression (speech), found in section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canadians from across the country are phoning, emailing and writing letters to their Members of Parliament and Prime Minister Trudeau.

This is amazing! Keep praying!

As Paul wrote to Timothy, in 1 Timothy 2,

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

And keep contacting parliamentarians. The application process is open until February 2.

Here are some excerpts from the letter I sent to my MP and the PM:

First, please be assured that I am praying for you, your family and the Government of Canada. Leadership of our nation is an immense responsibility.

… For many religious individuals and organizations that hold a position on the issues in question, that position has been formed based on an understanding of their religion’s sacred text. Their faith is comprehensive and all-encompassing of both beliefs and practices. There is no hierarchy of beliefs to which their practices are tied. Their core mandate includes all of their religion – both beliefs and practices – and cannot be compartmentalized into separation of one belief from their worship or community service. They cannot with integrity check a box that says their beliefs concerning abortion are not part of their core mandate, even though they may never have engaged politically on the matter of abortion or have any plans to do so.

… Both sides in this conversation seem convinced what they’re saying is reasonable and clear. However, as noted above, neither is being heard as such. Repeating the same words, a little slower and a little louder, will not resolve the situation. Movement is required. Under Canada’s constitution, that movement appears to be required of government, not the potential applicants.

A failure to correct the situation will result in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of agencies that depend on CSJ funding not receiving funding they rely on to serve the most underprivileged in our society, as well as those in the middle class. Countless community service programs from coast-to-coast-to-coast may be cancelled as a result, with the least privileged in our society suffering the most. It will likely also result in freedom of information requests in regard to CSJ funding recipients, continuing media coverage, and litigation. Many organizations have expressed a willingness to fight for the equal treatment that journalists, religious leaders, and lawyers have now publicly assured is guaranteed them in our “free and democratic society” under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Please do not take our nation down this divisive path.

Please make provision for religious organizations to have a means of application for CSJ funding without requiring them to compromise their beliefs.

There is a saying that often “when we mix politics with religion, we get politics.” Let’s keep our religion faithful. And remember – like St. Paul whose appeal to his Roman citizenship was for fair treatment, equal to any other citizen – the rights of our citizenship are to be exercised for God’s glory, not political gain.

John Stackhouse has written this concise reminder for us:

The most important message we have to tell, of course is the gospel of Jesus Christ. That gospel, however, is nested within the great Story of all that God has done and said, and all that God wants for us. So we have much to say, of different sorts in the public sphere today. (Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World, page 183)

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms professes to guarantee freedom of conscience and religion to all Canadians. But in practice, freedom of religion in Canada is “under siege.” I wholeheartedly commend to concerned Canadians Don Hutchinson’s analysis of the challenge and prescriptions for engagement.

Under Siege is available in paperback from my website, amazon, Indigo and others, as well as in a variety of electronic formats.

Thirty-six years ago, negotiations between Canada’s federal and provincial governments about the patriation of Canada’s constitution followed on the heels of a close referendum over the potential separation of Quebec. It was Ontario’s Bill Davis who led a group of premiers insisting the preamble to the nation’s proposed constitutional guarantee of human rights acknowledge “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

Don at the Supreme Court of Canada

The sitting Prime Minister’s opinion was expressed to his caucus as, “I don’t think God gives a damn whether he’s in the Constitution.” Pierre Trudeau may have had a point, but Davis’ position carried the day in the Constitution Act, 1982 .

In addition to affirming an expansive understanding of religious freedom for individuals andreligious organizations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in more than a dozen decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada has commented specifically on the language in the preamble, stating:

… the preamble to the Charter itself establishes that “… Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”. According to the reasoning espoused by Saunders J., if one’s moral view manifests from a religiously grounded faith, it is not to be heard in the public square, but if it does not, then it is publicly acceptable. The problem with this approach is that everyone has “belief” or “faith” in something, be it atheistic, agnostic or religious.

To construe the “secular” as the realm of the “unbelief” is therefore erroneous. Given this, why, then, should the religiously informed conscience be placed at a public disadvantage or disqualification? To do so would be to distort liberal principles in an illiberal fashion and would provide only a feeble notion of pluralism.

The key is that people will disagree about important issues, and such disagreement, where it does not imperil community living, must be capable of being accommodated at the core of a modern pluralism. [Justice Gonthier, endorsed by Chief Justice McLachlin, in the 2002 decision in Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board .]

As the fall session of the Supreme Court begins its sittings, the Government of Ontario and the Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario) have filed written arguments to challenge the establishment of a law school by a Christian university. They will appear later this year to state their position verbally. Trinity Western University’s proposed school of law complies in all respects with academic requirements agreed upon by members of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, including Ontario’s.

Still, both the government and law society argue (to use the Supreme Court’s language above) there is a need for them to put the private university “at a public disadvantage or disqualification” because the law society and government disagree with the university’s “religiously informed conscience” on the matter of a faith-based community covenant for staff and students. Both particularly object that the covenant prohibits sex between students or staff outside of marriage between one woman and one man.

It’s worth noting that in 2001 the Supreme Court supported Trinity Western’s community standards in a similar scenario when the challenge was brought by the British Columbia College of Teachers. The Court concluded the university met academic requirements and could offer an education degree, acknowledging not everyone would want to attend the private Christian university. Graduates who decided to teach in in B.C. would be subject to the B.C. College of Teachers’ rules of conduct. The Court noted, “if TWU’s Community Standards could be sufficient in themselves to justify denying accreditation, it is difficult to see how the same logic would not result in the denial of accreditation to members of a particular church. The diversity of Canadian society is partly reflected in the multiple religious organizations that mark the societal landscape and this diversity of views should be respected.”

In its 2004 decision in Reference re Same Sex Marriage , the Court expressed its position that there would be genuine differences of opinion about marriage. Protecting the right of religious individuals and communities to hold a definition of marriage at variance with that of the State, the Court observed, “The right to freedom of religion enshrined in s. 2 (a ) of the Charter encompasses the right to believe and entertain the religious beliefs of one’s choice, the right to declare one’s religious beliefs openly and the right to manifest religious belief by worship, teaching, dissemination and religious practice.”

In its submission to the Supreme Court in the law school case, the Law Society of Upper Canada bases its objection to Trinity Western operating a law school and the licensing of its graduates to practice law because the Law Society considers the Christian university to be “a private institution” with a “discriminatory admissions policy.” Effectively, the Law Society of Upper Canada contends the graduates of a law school that fulfils the academic requirements established to competently practice law in Canada may do so anywhere but Ontario, because the operating ethos of the school is Christian in belief and practice. The Government of Ontario has intervened in support of the Law Society’s position: no school, no graduates.

Consistent with this distortion of “liberal principles in an illiberal fashion” (to go back to Justice Gonthier’s words above about placing the religiously informed at disadvantage), in recent weeks the Law Society has initiated an extension of its submission on Trinity Western for application to currently licensed lawyers in Ontario. The Law Society has issued a directive requiring all its members “to create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in your behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public” before January 1, 2018.

The new decree is framed within efforts to address racism within the legal profession, but the language chosen leaves little doubt that the promotion of “equality, diversity and inclusion generally” goes beyond the question of race.

As a Christian, I believe and practice the Biblical recognition that all persons are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) with inherent dignity and value, and are worthy of respect.

As a licensee of the Law Society of Upper Canada, I am obligated to abide by the laws in the Province of Ontario generally, particularly the Ontario Human Rights Code . Under the Law Society’s Rules of Professional Conduct I have “a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity” as well as to “be courteous, civil, and act in good faith with all persons with whom the lawyer has dealings in the course of their practice.”

I expect to find myself among a group of lawyers from a variety of faith communities who consider our religious beliefs, commitment to the laws of nation and province, and obligations under existing rules of professional conduct – which is a mandatory community covenant for all who desire to practice law – as sufficient to address the Law Society’s concerns. There really is nothing more to add for purposes of an individual Statement of Principles.

However, submitting a statement that says my faith beliefs and existing obligations are more-than-enough may fall short of the Law Society’s expectation for members to “promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally.” Perhaps, only because we may have different understandings of what the words “promote,” “equality,” “diversity,” and “inclusion” mean. If adjudged that this more-than-enough is too little, I will likely find myself in the companionship of a substantial number of lawyers who, like potential graduates of Trinity Western University’s proposed school of law, have satisfied all academic requirements to engage in the practice of law, comply with Ontario’s laws and our obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct, but will not bow religiously informed consciences to the god of 21 century political correctness.

Thirty-five years after Canada’s new constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressed its guarantee for the fundamental freedom of freedom of religion, it appears officials at the Law Society of Upper Canada and political leaders in the Government of Ontario might now well be the ones who don’t give a damn, this time concerning what the rule of law has to say about those who recognize the supremacy of God.

Canadian values. That two-word phrase is so well undefined it can fuel a debate between just about any pair of Canadians. Sometimes only one is required.

Our Prime Minister recently apologized for laying claim to an understanding of Canadian values that resulted in providing a response in French to a question asked in English at a town hall meeting in Quebec. His understanding has since shifted with the realization that asked in English would better have been answered in English, just as in Alberta asked in French would be better answered in French.

The phrase isn’t just employed by politicians.

Of late, Canadian values has been too frequently used as a phrase to hurl at adversaries as an allegation of bigotry and abject failure of character, or as words to hail claim to (y)our side’s genuine Canadian-ness. But what exactly are these values we Canadians hurl or hail?

Publicly touted as at or near the top of any list of Canadian values are tolerance and diversity.

Tolerance was once societally defined and understood. Rather than to assail contrary speech or beliefs, tolerance equipped Canadians to respectfully and peacefully disagree. Tolerance started with acceptance of one another as people. There was acknowledgment that civil dialogue, even debate, might not bring agreement. And that’s why tolerance was required.

In those (good old?) days, my parents’ Bajan accents were heard in conversation with the diverse collection of other Canadians’ accents on the street or over the backyard fence, not always in pleasant conversation but civil enough. I don’t recall hearing anyone being told to go back where they came from. Their kids, me among them, were even allowed to play together.

In twenty-first century Canada, tolerance is too often self-defined by the person/group claiming to be tolerant. The tolerance claim is almost as often made in conjunction with the assertion that those who disagree are intolerant. And frequently accompanied by an ad hominem attack stating opponents are evil, phobic or both.

Diversity is today also most often declared to be as defined by the person or group claiming it. The opinions or beliefs of others are rejected solely because they diverge from those of the diversity claiming claimant. Emphasis is, again, placed on the evil or phobic nature of any person or identifiable group of people whose opinion differs.

Human rights legislation developed to protect individuals and minority groups as a shield from abuse is today being asserted instead as sword. Select individuals and groups advance rights-oriented arguments decrying those who do not conform as being unworthy to belong in a democratic society or in need of re-education. Of course the danger in striking with a sword is that swordsmanship prescribes a strike be met with a block and counter-strike. The public square thus becomes a battlefield rather than its intended place for dialogue and the free exchange of ideas.

In the name of free speech, tolerance and diversity, increasing numbers of individuals and groups now threaten or engage in actual violence – against police officers, elected officials and other alleged adversaries – ostensibly in order to prevent peaceful presentation of differing ideas in the public square.

The concepts of tolerance and diversity that were once used to build societal bridges have been re-engineered by the new brand of activists to erect walls of societal division.

The Supreme Court of Canada has considered these assertions in the light of our constitution, declaring that in a free and democratic society… we all belong. The Court has dared suggest that tolerance is not about exclusion or forced inclusion but acceptance of difference. And diversity does not require compliance or conformity with another’s beliefs or demands. However, the Court’s words are at variance with the positions of many new philosopher-activists, who have chosen neither to welcome the Court’s words nor heed them.

More is required of us as Canadians if we are going to engage in meaningful conversation, conversation not just about what we have in common but accommodation of our differences. Isn’t that the kind of conversation vital to living life together in the shared space that is Canada?

Genuine tolerance leaves little room for allegations it is intolerant of others to peaceably disagree. Authentic diversity has little space for the assertion that those who are not like us don’t belong. There is not a sincere understanding of either that can legitimately suggest violence as the way to secure one, the other or both.

First century author Paul of Tarsus offers these still relevant words of advice, “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.” (Galatians 5:13-15)